Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

hn_throwaway_99

I thought this was a really excellent post. The thing I liked best about it was how it presented the different set of numbers and didn't try to say "one is wrong or one is right", but instead tried to explain where the numbers came from, and what the outcome would be if some assumptions were wrong so the reader can do their own analysis. What I found particularly helpful:

1. Explaining the difference between MacKay's original "technically possible" vs. "practically possible" supply numbers. I agree with the article, the world has changed a ton since 2008 and I do think much more of that technical possibility is now practical due to changes in tech and attitude.

2. One thing I was cautious about is that the lion's share of final 2050 supply in the updated numbers comes from floating offshore wind, which in my understanding is the least technologically "ready" solution. Can someone with more knowledge comment on this? Is floating wind really as "production ready" as would be needed to match these numbers?

Floating wind is production ready and in production in the UK. The flagship example was Hywind in Scotland which has been in production since 2017.

There are several other offshore projects using floating wind, more being converted and a lot more planned for conversion or development. There is quite a lot of investment and encouragement from government. See https://www.great.gov.uk/international/content/investment/se... for a reasonable overview.

O'Callaghan et al. successfully retained the baby - MacKay's method - while discarding the bathwater - his 2008 data.

There is nothing in principle to prevent scale-up of floating wind, but there is an awful lot of scaling to do. Who really knows?

This report probably could use an update ten years hence, but they have done a good job with what is known and can reasonably be predicted.

Floating wind is very low in novelty, there is just a cost trade-off depending on water depth. If your water is too deep then structures become too expensive and floating is cheaper in deep water. There is some room for improvement in floating which will get costs down, but it is totally fine to just deploy straight away.

But if you can install offshore wind on small structures like <30 metres then get that done first, it's cheaper.

> ... the lion's share of final 2050 supply in the updated numbers comes from floating offshore wind.

About 1500 out of 2800 - or close to half - in the projections I'm seeing on that page.

Not the lion's share, unless we're looking at something different?

The lion's share is the chunk that is by far the biggest. Not necessarily over half.

In this case, there are hydro, nuclear, PV, on-shore wind, thermal bioenergy plants, and fossil gas plants as well.

I'm just curious - what did you think "the lion's share" means?

Almost all, or the vast majority.

We already have plenty of words and phrases that mean 'large' or 'most', so it's a shame this phrase is losing its specific meaning and joining with myriad interchangeable synonyms that mean something more pedestrian.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com